“In the referential use of a definite description we may succeed in picking out a person or thing to ask a question about even though he or it does not really fit the description; but in the attributive use if nothing fits the description, no straightforward answer to the question can be given.”(287)
Donellan makes the distinction between words in a sentence that are used as a referential definition, or attributive use. He gives the example of a sentence, “Smith's murderer is insane” (289) to show the difference between referential and attributive. Smith’s murder is insane as a reference can be if there was a person, Jones, who was on trial for Smith’s murderer, and if he was known to be insane. Smith’s murder as insane an attribute can be assuming someone who would commit a crime like murder must be insane.
Donellan focuses on both the attributive use as well as the referential use, which is the distinction between his theory compared to Russel, who only applies to the attributive uses.
What kind of attribute exists that would allow for there to be absolutely nothing that would fit a description, regardless of if it is an accurate description or not?
As far as your question goes, if you consider "non-existent" to be an attribute and our conversations on fictional characters I think that would be it. Our earlier (brief) conversation about the logic of God being something that contains all properties, and the kind of paradoxes that ensue from that logic may also fit. "Logic and the Nature of God" by Stephen T. Davis looks at that in more depth. Is that what you were asking about?
ReplyDeleteI agree with your interpretation of the quote and agree that the attributive use cannot yield answer with an unfitting description. Yet I believe a fitting description is still possible by contextual phrases, where there is past knowledge of events leading up to a present event, such as a trial. Where if I were on the stand and whatever the blank description I give the context of past events would interpret my description as an answer that becomes straightforward by context of the past.
ReplyDelete